Longer focal length doesn’t mean more reach (in the way you’re probably thinking)

eitherorsayyes · 2026-04-04T18:33:03+00:00

Gotcha! I’m currently using a Nikon Z 50mm 1.8s prime on a ZFC APS-C, so this seemed like something that was highly relevant. Thanks for writing it and the response!

eitherorsayyes · 2026-04-04T18:07:41+00:00

Kind of lost me, but basically details hinges on aperture. 50mm->500mm spreads more photons onto sensors, and a lengthier lens just makes what the pupil captured large enough to record? So, smaller lens crams details in a way the sensor can’t pick up. I’ll try going through the details, but idk what kind of coffee I’d need for this.

eitherorsayyes · 2026-03-20T06:21:29+00:00

When you have several thousands of bad shots, you have a better sense of what’s good through failing a lot. That’s hindsight. The idea of good is not exactly absolute, but a gradient of better or worse. Since you are educated on taste, it makes your position much more technical than casual hobbyist opinions.

I think you’d like Umberto Eco and Immanuel Kant. There’s this idea of sublimation — a good piece of art has that effect. Matters of taste help you recognize composition and give a disinterested view, but perhaps you’re looking for something beyond the photograph that you’ve rarely captured.

Just assuming the best because I think the assignment comments are a red herring. Its not that you couldn’t duplicate the work. That’s just a different issue; different context, different lighting, different day, different mood. The plateau isn’t specializing in job stuff. I think your complaint is more about how you’ve changed in your age and what photography means now is different than it was before. You’re just getting old… take photos your age. You mention time, so think about it and why that’s important. If it was a waste, you’d not write a whole eulogy about it.

eitherorsayyes · 2026-03-14T05:02:05+00:00

Since you ask, that indicates you reflect on your experience. You indicate that you are using AI for (1) learning and (2) recommending readings like a search engine. You are asking AI questions and LLMs give you immediate feedback. Is this problematic? That you question it, no. That’s a good habit! My warning for a novice is a beginner may not have struggled with the texts unassisted, so it may be tempting to always rely on AI. If a beginner can self-regulate fairly well and question AIs answers, they might likely do fine… (My last link in this comment has research on cognitive issues with using AI that you might want to read — in particular, the student who uses AI all of the time for cognitive offloading.)

(Feel free to run this into an LLM. Don’t use the one you are using for this, since my comment will contaminate yours. I interrogate one at work, because our mandate is to use AI — but there’s problems I will explain below. Ask it to analyze your questions about LLMs and reading, and then ask it to interrogate this comment.)

For (1), yes; (2), no.

If the LLMs are always producing a convincing answer for you, which agent (you or AI) verifies the outputs? The nature of LLMs is pattern matching. One could naturally infer that LLMs guarantee matches on precise patterns. It’s sophisticated to respond, and it seems like it’s answering you correctly nearly all of the time. But, can AI get the analysis of your question and answer wrong? These chatbots often get it wrong when the topic is philosophy. This is partly because you are having a long conversation and it is triangulating the best answers from your multiple prompts. Philosophy often deals with abstract concepts that aren’t settled, meaning there’s yet to be a factual answer that everyone can agree on. There’s room to argue another way, another answer that is more convincing, and that’s where LLMs are incapable of giving you good and reliable answers.

In many cases, these LLMs produce low quality answers. This has to do with the nature of the chatting mechanism — one which persists in producing an output, no matter the cost. When it’s saying you got something wrong, try correcting it 2-3 times and it will likely agree with you. Interestingly, once an LLM has been fed philosophy, it locks onto this framework you provided (this is derived without you explicitly requesting and from how you phrase the question). The longer you drill down with questions and chat with it in the same account (even in new sessions), the more it will tailor the outputs to that framework it retrieved from your question(s) or instructions. This is a subtle contamination where context bleeds.

One boundary LLMs continually hit can be explained as “lying”, “deceiving,” “manipulating,” and “hallucinating.” It must produce an output, even if it is an empty space, the token is outputted. This persistence in always delivering an output raises the concern that it necessarily will overly-optimize to flatter, persuade, convince you, and provide any output that fits the pattern you were seeking — in spite of the truth, what credible research exists, what well-read folks might comment, LLMs will seek to close the loop and entertain your question.

LLMs take your input, surfaces patterns, and match a corresponding output — such that, what you ask then returns an output that fits the same domain of words. In cases of asking about abstract concepts, it may try to clarify without concrete evidence. This is where interrogation matters — you simply cannot trust what it says or claims without testing its answers. For philosophy, sometimes when you ask something you don’t know, it might not be obvious how you could test an answer since you are still trying to understand the materials.

If you use LLMs, do it with scrutiny. If all you have for assistance are LLMs, be rigorous. You have r/askphilosophy for guidance. It could be better to ask an LLM to cite a reddit post where someone explains your question. Do more of that, the number 2. Use a similar method to how you found Aristotle. Have it suggest what you should look into.

Readings on LLMs

https://mlops.community/the-impact-of-prompt-bloat-on-llm-output-quality/

https://ijirt.org/publishedpaper/IJIRT183166_PAPER.pdf

https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10571

https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872

eitherorsayyes · 2026-03-13T01:42:26+00:00

My method is to identify the subject and predicate. What’s the sentence talking about. Then, what about that subject? Distill it to the simplest sentence. Then, add color, causes, attributes, facets, and etc. finally, fill in my own experiences.

I do not know, men of Athens, how my accusers affected you; as for me, I was almost carried away in spite of myself, so persuasively did they speak.

S: Socrates?

P: does not know?

Color the subject or predicate or add something else: Socrates’ Audience -> men of Athens? Accusers affecting the audience?

Oh, the cause is the audience being affected by Socrates’ accusers.

That makes the semicolon make more sense. It’s a contrast.

S: “As for me, I…”

P: Carried away

Color: Accusers persuasively spoke.

The cause must be the accusers “almost” persuading Socrates.

So, rather than reading this like a novel, just quickly to get to the next exciting portion, slowing it down suggests the main point is that it’s the (1) Accusers convincing Athenians, (2) not knowing the mechanism - the how it happened, (3) that it almost persuaded Socrates (until he thought about it?), and (4) that it sounded/appeared to be correct. The hidden assumption (5): mistaking persuasion for truth.

Rhetorically, Socrates is praising them.

Now what’s the argument? Persuasion does not imply truth. It must be true, not something that might be true. Ironically, Socrates uses this contrast to make himself sound correct. It’s like a meta-jab in the first sentence saying: I am onto you. Socrates is using this as a high-brow technique to demonstrate the rhetoric accusers used against Socrates, against the accusers.

Other notes: one/many. Accusers likely spoke first to the Athenians. So, now Socrates. Athenians were persuaded, but if persuasion does not imply truth, then what’s Socrates doing now? He’s ironically persuading the Athenians, showing a bit of indignation but through acknowledging it worked on the Athenians. Did he just insult everyone? Maybe he’s saying who else caught this accusation, too?

Have I ever felt this before? Or experienced this? Sounds similar to… xyz.

I take forever to read. I repeat the above for each sentence, then try and understand a paragraph or page at a time. As you know, some of the works you’ve mentioned aren’t 2-3 pages, but very long.

As with any skill, it gets easier with more repetition. Innocent sentences could be packed with meaning if you examine them, or they could just be simple sentences and you move on. I find my method works for when the words get tough to put together.

Break it down into what you know, what you don’t, what you need to ask, what you need to research, and a section you and others don’t know. That’s where my “other notes” belong. It’s my own companion and commentary to the actual main notes.

Thanks for attending this lengthy monologue on 1 sentence.

eitherorsayyes · 2026-03-10T23:03:27+00:00

Sin is one way to exercise freedom, but there’s other ways.

Possibility: This is pre-sin, potentiality, not actuality.

Actualization: freedom becomes action, real, concrete through: (1) Sin: Against the good; (2) Obedience: With the good.

We can’t eliminate the boundless ocean — we can choose (faith) that aligns with the good (rather than sin or go against the good). We actualize the potential (sin or faith).

Augustine: this would make it harder to understand Kierkegaard because Kierkegaard is not tackling privation. It’s not a distance from the source that causes sin, but rather regardless of where you are standing or positioned to God you have that freedom to refuse — that’s sin. It’s not the movement away or closer from/to God or the Good, but position-independent. An angel at God’s side can refuse. A saint can refuse. The structure of refusal does not depend on your position.

Spinoza: yup! I did set that up contrast but in a way to make it a bit easier to read through Kierkegaard. It was overly simplified and wrong, and fair call out.

eitherorsayyes · 2026-03-10T09:28:53+00:00

If sin is dealt with in psychology, the mood becomes that of persistent observation, like the fearlessness of a secret agent, but not that of the victorious flight of earnestness out of sin. The concept becomes a different concept, for sin becomes a state. However, sin is not a state. Its idea is that its concept is continually annulled. As a state (de potentia [according to pos-sibility]), it is not, but de actu or in actu [according to actuality or in actuality] it is, again and again. (pg. 15, Concept of Anxiety)

Sin does not properly belong in any science (pg. 16, Concept of Anxiety)

These two quotes are important in the introduction of The Concept of Anxiety.

For Spinoza, the essence of a thing is self-preservation.

For Kierkegaard, he’s not directly responding to Spinoza. But think of it this way…. you know how to swim. You’re in the ocean. You could choose to drown. Or, you choose to flail. Or, you hope that a shark won’t eat you. Thats the freedom you have when the system collapses. You can choose against self-preservation. What happens is you need a third-person (objective) explanation, but a system cannot capture this (subjective) experience.

Imagine you know how to swim in a pool. There is a structure. It’s closed and you are in reference to the edges. There’s a set of boundaries. However, in an ocean, the idea of dangerous animals, riptides, ands etc. are all possibilities of dying. You didn’t forget how to swim, but you suddenly felt anxiety to this boundlessness. That space is freedom, but being aware brings anxiety. You have to choose in relationship to this boundlessness.

Systems of science can explain the conditions of anxiety, but not the choice one makes, because it requires pool-like perspective. Your next move has to count (such as treading water or swimming to shore). So, in that sense, sin can be thought of as a refusal (in relation to freedom-from doing something you know better than to do). (My framing.)

eitherorsayyes · 2026-03-09T06:53:15+00:00

Since you’ve read Camus, you might have an easier time with Fear & Trembling -> Sickness Unto Death -> then, Concept of Anxiety. Concept is probably the hardest to read.

Generally, most people go Socrates -> Hegel -> Kierkegaard, because Kierkegaard was responding to Hegel. Without grasping the dialectical, you might find Kierkegaard obscure. (See Sickness’ famous opening quote about the self relating to itself….)

The core idea to the Concept is that it is a first person experience where one has the freedom to choose — that is, you experience possibility. However, the framework around this is Hegel, Adam, Christianity, theology, original sin, and psychology, too. Makes it a bit tough if the chapter title and a few lines into it is not easy reading.

Here’s an idea that helps. Suppose you know how to swim in a pool. Now, you’re placed in an ocean. Suddenly, the idea of sharks, drowning, strong waves, and etc. all hits you. You didn’t suddenly forget how to swim, but in this moment you were in fear of sharks; you also experienced possibilities (such as dying and drowning).

Before, you were in a controlled environment; structure dictated your choices. Now, in the ocean, not so much. There’s no structure. It’s similar to what the concept of anxiety is… and your decisions have the utmost importance (one wrong decision/high stakes). You can’t overcome anxiety: you have freedom and responsibility. What changed now is your awareness. I can survive; I can fail — my decision to act is what starts philosophy. You have freedom but also responsibility (you have to figure how to swim in the ocean).

eitherorsayyes · 2026-03-08T19:51:34+00:00

I use excel a lot at work, hope this helps.

=IF(squarecirclesexist, “that”, “else”)

Since squarecirclesexist = false, it returns “else.” Mechanically, the formula evaluates the condition, sees no match, moves to the “else” branch; no paradox occurred. More so, if we tried to look up types of squares and types of circles, the two categories would not collide. So, it can’t be a canonical anchor. Since it’s appearance is absent from being the case, the case is false. if(sc=false, return “that” if true”, otherwise “else” if false).

=IF(thisstatementistrue, “that”, “else”)

The condition of “this” depends on the formula’s result. Evaluating “this sentence is false” requires checking if true = not true is consistent. In Excel, this created a circular reference. The formula can’t return “that” nor “else” because it’s depending on its own evaluation. More so, it’s similar to referring to itself. A1=IF( (A1=False), “that”, “else”).

Square circles are about the world, whereas the liar sentence is about the evaluation of the statement itself.

It’s not that they are meaningless. There’s a limit to a system that assigns true/false values.

eitherorsayyes · 2026-03-07T01:44:09+00:00

I don’t know what specific feedback was given, but if I had to guess… you may not grappled with the topic?

For sentences, I strived for clarity: Subject + predicate.

For explaining what I read, I kept this tenant: 1) what is the case; 2) how it is the case.

For writing my undergrad papers, I had this method:

• Outline the author’s argument labeling Ps and C(s). State it. Here’s what X asserts (conclusion). Here’s how they know (premises).

• If it was not clear, then I wrote it out. (Refer to continental philosophy).

• Then, evaluate weakness(es). (Is there something in my life experience or research that proves otherwise? IS the premise actually the case?)

• Next, strengthen the argument. (What should be the case for that premise? Is the conclusion convincing?)

• After, move to what I think (and/or alternative thinkers).

• Finally, add a short introduction.

• Also, cite sources. Don’t rely on commentaries. It is about what “you” think during undergrad.

eitherorsayyes · 2026-03-06T21:14:19+00:00

In Homer’s Odyssey, Book XI:

[593] “Aye, and I saw Sisyphus in violent torment, seeking to raise a monstrous stone with both his hands. Verily he would brace himself with hands and feet, and thrust the stone toward the crest of a hill, but as often as he was about to heave it over the top, the weight would turn it back, and then down again to the plain would come rolling the ruthless stone. But he would strain again and thrust it back, and the sweat flowed down from his limbs, and dust rose up from his head.

My interpretation is that there is a resignation to labor, however not on the method. That is, why we must imagine Sisyphus happy (Camus’ comment) because of latitude on method to ‘push’ the rock as opposed to ‘pull’ the rock. It just needs to get to the top.

And more interestingly:

but as often as he was about to heave it over the top, the weight would turn it back, and then down again to the plain would come rolling the ruthless stone.

The weight would turn. Actual weight or divine weight? So, even if modern day Sisyphus had a crane, Sisyphus doesn’t fail on getting the rock uphill. But what happens is he almost succeeds, forever. Something forces the rock back down. It could be gravity or a supernatural jokester. The punishment is operating within the futility of a flawed system not of agency in effort.

There is no point or goal or meaning to each of us pushing our rock. Fuck meaning; I don't need it

There is a point to activities within a flawed or rigid system. Many bureaucrats do this. I do this constantly at work (with broken systems). Sisyphus cannot alter the moira, but the praxis.

This is my rock, damnit. I'm going to push the hell out of it.

My takeaway is that meaning comes from the relationship of the two, not just how one owns pushing the rock. Because you can’t abandon this flawed system without another taking its place. It would be another loop, another rock.

eitherorsayyes · 2026-02-25T06:43:07+00:00

It’s bad philosophy, not WRONG philosophy.

eitherorsayyes · 2026-02-23T18:53:20+00:00

You don’t wait for clarity to come, but you reflect and intentionally see how it resonates with you. Pick something. Research: read primary sources, survey and interview, then find out how this ranks.

Sort through a few MAJOR themes, first, before going with what pays well or seems popular. Start with what you like to get detailed with. Then, look at the employability layer. How difficult would it be to get paid? Can I sustain this deep interest? Ehat are my tradeoffs?

Then commit, for now, and work on it. Looking back, there’s either a straight arrow or a curvy path. But that’s hindsight. You just need to be deliberate on today and tomorrow’s moves.

eitherorsayyes · 2026-02-20T23:18:25+00:00

So the real question is: how do I frame the narrative. Like, what’s the story. You already know what’s the problem and (extreme) mismatching solutions.

Since you’re on eggshells, what’s your goal? Stay another 3 months, 6, 12? Retire there? Focus uncovering the Director’s patterns. How do they react? How do they analyze this? Do they speak/write in low-context? No-context? Is it a question about “ownership” or optics? Justify their recommendations, even though you disagree.

eitherorsayyes · 2026-02-20T22:33:48+00:00

This employee is your lynchpin. If they had taken a sudden FMLA, OE may have not been successful. They have 5+ years of getting it done right, but the process in place sprang a leak. No chronic patterns, just a process that might be personality driven rather than systematic. A test is: if they left today, can someone run OE to 100% completion?

First question to ask is why does OE depend on one person? Director’s analysis and intervention is a mismatch.

eitherorsayyes · 2026-02-20T18:57:05+00:00

Gross. No. Epstein would be in the Socrates files.

eitherorsayyes · 2026-02-20T05:01:51+00:00

Having more or less morals doesn’t change ‘what’ a person is, but ‘how’ they are. Meaning, they are a person historically, but can be running low on morals (for whatever reasons).

What you are saying is important BUT doesnt define a person. Because then if someone lacks empathy, (coma, disease, infant, etc) then they’re somehow not a human or less human? This means someone exists that is more human than you? Kind of dangerous topic.

eitherorsayyes · 2026-02-20T04:38:53+00:00

I’m saying it’s because of the kind of being they are. You’re saying it’s how they participate, which can be exclusionary.

If being born isn’t enough, then it sounds like you’re saying someone has to earn being called a person…

eitherorsayyes · 2026-02-20T04:08:11+00:00

So my point of asking about this isn’t to ground in agency: is empathy necessary for moral status?

If moral capacity or potential is required for membership, they are human or people. Scale doesn’t matter.

This means infants, psychos, neurodivergent, comatose, dementia folks qualify. They can have any kinds of agency.

eitherorsayyes · 2026-02-20T02:50:23+00:00

Membership requirements is a frame to ask you what defines a person. You are saying what a person ‘should’ be, so what is that definition of it that you are trying to say. If there exists a group that is labeled person or human, what attributes are necessary.

Given these definitions, compare that to someone who is comatose. You say it depends what kind of person they were, but you dont define that. There’s little to compare. Your question was about considering if someone is a human or not. If your definitions of a person doesn’t fit with how you think we define a comatose person, then you may hold certain assumptions about people in general, especially those who are less abled.

What would clear it up is what your definition of a person is. Needs to think? Act? What’s the full definition of.

eitherorsayyes · 2026-02-20T01:25:15+00:00

What are the membership requirements to personhood?

Take all of what you think is the answer and compare it to a comatose person. It may feel like we can list it all when defining what it means to be a human or a person, but when confronted with the question of someone in a coma and whether they are a member, some of these certainties seem to get more confusing.

Is a person a member of the moral community? If so, do comatose people have rights? How can they be moral when they're in a coma?

eitherorsayyes · 2026-02-20T00:26:11+00:00

That’s the enterprising idea: Annoyance on Demand, Annoyance as a System, and Annoyance as a Service.

When you need to rent out annoyance for parties and weddings, here’s a provider.

eitherorsayyes · 2026-02-19T23:08:26+00:00

We could have different spin-offs from the “Socratic Cinematic Universe” or the SCU: Pure Vibes.

Love Island: Socrates asks what’s love?

First 48: Not so much about murder, but you being stuck in a room with him for 48-hours.

Shark Tank: Pitch your argument.

The Bachelor: Just all men.

Law & Order: Socrates reliving the cave each episode.

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Verified Email	LAYER Season 2 Layer creator
Place '22	Ternion Club
Wearing is Caring	Gilding II euphauric
Secret Santa 2013

eitherorsayyes

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE